It's amusing that people put such an emphasis on food. "I'll happily pay $1k a year for a pill (when it comes out) for much of the same benefits that I can have today, simply by changing my lifestyle." Somehow living life to it's fullest requires heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. And the old standby: we don't know what'll happen tomorrow. Do you have a home? A truck could go off the road and drive right through it any time. House insurance? Almost never gets used. Savings? Why save when you could be dead tomorrow? We all live our lives by the odds, more or less. There's a high enough (to me) chance I or my wife will die before our children are self-sufficient, so we have life insurance. I have a job, a home, children, and I expect they'll all be there for the next 20 years, because the odds say they will (except the job, but there are replacements there, too). People are afraid of change, and are in love with our diet and lifestyle. Most are willing to die rather than change, or give up those things they love.
There has been speculation for over a century that if adults limit their caloric intake to 60% of recommended, that your lifespan will be approximately double the average. There are currently studies being done with rats that have this effect. Already, scientific research has identified a compound nicknamed AGE that is created when sugars are combusted while having too much sugar present. It causes cell death when the quantities get too high, and leads to a reasonable explanation for the restricted-calorie idea. Hopefully, someday, we will see studies to verify this effect in humans.
On a side note, whether eating in a less-than-optimal manner reduces my lifespan, or eating in an optimal manner increases my lifespan is entirely semantics. The end result is, if I eat one way, I'll live 10 years (or whatever) less than if I eat another. And "not paying attention to it" can be sufficiently achieved by eating a typical American diet.
Wow, you've just supplied a theory in which teaching basic QM to idiots improves the universe's (and multiverse's) average intelligence. I propose that further experimentation be done to test this theory. Where do I sign up?
Cute line, but I'm ashamed of the moderators. Batteries (and battery density) are also important to electrical systems (which is not electronics, think motors) and weapons systems:P
I agreed with most of what you said, but had to point out one thing I didn't agree with: whether government should have a concern with the promotion of arts and sciences. Government is very interested in those things, because of two things: economy and security. People pay to see (or own) great art, people pay for the results of science, and having superior technology to other countries benefits your security (this goes beyond the 'security' issues of the day, imagine if anyone could easily counterfeit one of the most influential currencies around?). When you think of France, what do you think of? Well, besides renaming foods in retaliation for not wanting to play in the Middle East. Yep, really old buildings, (one of the?) tallest freestanding structure in the world, the Louvre. And where are you going to eat, and sleep? All good for the economy.
So it behooves the government to be interested in this, just like they're interested in industry, because it is the lifeblood of the country. They (are supposed to) make laws to promote this, preferably not to the long-term detriment of these same things. The idea is, artists/inventors will have the capability to make a profit (and pay off the research costs) before the protection is gone and anyone can use their new idea, which will attract them to your country, and further promote your economy. This is all great in theory, and I agree with it, in theory. But when you have 25-year patents in an industry where 5 years old is obsolete, or copyrights lasting decades after the death of the artist, it seems the spirit of the constitution is being directly contradicted, and your point of view may well be better the current state of affairs.
Should private space craft become widely available, it would be theoretically possible to deliver (at the very least) a kinetic energy bomb to any point on the earth, at many times the speed of sound, using nothing more sophisticated than box cutters.
How to fix?
Easy. Outlaw all boxcutters, manufacture huge, expensive machines to detect box cutters, and take away the constitutional rights of anyone known to own or have access to box cutters. I suggest starting the investigations with school teachers. They always seem to have access to sharp pointy things, and, with the grades American students are getting, they clearly are focusing on other things than their jobs.
Or you could just wake up and realize that terrorism deaths were barely a blip in the annual death toll, barely outranking the flu for that year. Still shitty, but not worth removing the rights of some significant portion of a quarter billion people.
I'm supplied with an IBM laptop through work, previous was Win2KPro, current is WinXPPro. I didn't have (many) problems with the 2K box - about once a week, it would require a full reboot, and certain (non-standard) apps would fail in one way or another after S3 or suspend-to-disk. Overall, it was worth the more-regular-than-I-hoped-for reboots. My WinXP works fine for both S3 and suspend-to-disk, no noticeable issues requiring reboots, and same issues with the non-standard apps. I only reboot once or twice a month now, mostly to clean up the garbage from apps that don't quite behave (which probably isn't a suspend issue).
Not to say your experience is an exception. These are the first two computers where I've had it work, and only in the last 3 years. There were others where I work that didn't behave sufficiently to do S3 at all.
Did you take Literature 101? Did you not read the part where I said one of the requirements for this to occur was "cheap (read: free)" energy? And yes, since carbon is in just about everything, Pixie dust should work just fine, so long as you can find some. If not, you can use just about anything else, like you said. That said, I could have been clearer, saying instead, "After all, what is the value of something that requires only free resources (materials, energy) and no labour to produce?" But nice contextual break.
You're right, of course. Easy access to physical manufacturing on demand, coupled with cheap (read: free) energy would totally ruin our current economy. After all, what is the value of something that requires no resources (materials, energy, labour) to produce? The interesting questions are: Will the leaders of our current economy allow this to happen easily?; and, What kind of economy will replace it? I don't think the economic leaders will be able to stop this for long once the requirements are met (and that could take a VERY long time), so it's the less interesting of the two. The more interesting is the second. I think in a society like that, you will see two kinds of celebrities: those who design truly new things; and those who adapt new things in innovative ways. That will be the currency in that kind of environment. Beyond that, I think you'll see an interesting mix of new ideas and very old ideas, because, even with a revolution as big as that, humans will remain human.
Re:EU legislation to follow?
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 1
Moreover, will road cones that aren't working (or on strike) be required to be constantly moving while in that state? After all, they seem to work best when they are stationary...hey, I'm qualified to be a road cone!
How can you tell this car was built by academics? They spend god knows how many hours building a car out of wood, from purposely obfuscated plans that are half a thousand years old, and have never heard of the Utah salt flats. I mean come on, they test rocket cars there! Do they really think a giant wind-up toy is going to do better than that?
Where the hell are you going to sit on this thing? I can just imagine a bunch of people in Victorian clothing pushing it backwards and getting on their skateboards while still holding on for a ride down the cobbled streets.
I'd far rather trust my military's fuel supply to a foreign country than engage in warmongering. Bush's actions border on that.
Yes, Venezuela is part of OPEC. OPEC also controls 75% of the known oil reserves. They also supply 40% of the world's oil needs. Think long and hard about the short- and long-term control that gives them on oil prices. Something tells me that when the production of oil is lowered in Venezuela, the price of Texas crude goes up, too. That's basic supply and demand. Again, if the U.S. can increase the supply, which direction is the price going to go?
Oh, are we back to where U.S. buys their oil from? How much of a reduction of profit is any company going to take to do the right thing? Texas oil might be cheaper than Venezuelan oil, but how much? Well, take a look at this. Or compare the values of these twolinks. Hmm, why is U.S. crude more expensive? Well, could be the prices don't include shipping, or it could be government pork. Why don't you determine that? So let's sing a new song: It doesn't matter which OPEC country you buy oil from, or even if you don't buy from them, all countries are going to sell at or about the going rate. And OPEC holds a lot of power over that rate.
I may not have studied the niceties of the oil market much beyond being an informed consumer, and having the previously mentioned high-school-level knowledge of economics, but it's nice to see that it all bears out. Maybe there's a difference between ignorance and an educated guess.
As for patriotism, no I don't think it's bad, so long as it isn't blind or wearing rose-colored glasses. Patriotism, like science, ought to bear up to harsh, cold scrutiny. If it doesn't, it needs to be re-evaluated. No, I don't live in the U.S., but if I did, I would like to think I would be spending time in the streets protesting a war with no forthrightness, a presidency with no regard for its constituents, and a culture with no respect for other cultures.
Oh, so how much has Halliburton made in Iraq? Here's one link. Do you really want me to believe that there aren't qualified organizations based in the Middle East for working in oil fields? How about the rest of Europe?
Also, ever hear of OPEC? You know, the guys setting oil production rates in the Middle East? Seems to me, whenever they limit production, world oil prices go up, no matter which one you buy from. Stands to reason that, if the U.S had Iraq ignore the production limits set by them, you could reduce their control on oil prices, even halfway around the world in the U.S, let alone in Saudi Arabia.
Your ignorance, as well as your patriotism, is stereotypical.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amusing that people put such an emphasis on food. "I'll happily pay $1k a year for a pill (when it comes out) for much of the same benefits that I can have today, simply by changing my lifestyle." Somehow living life to it's fullest requires heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. And the old standby: we don't know what'll happen tomorrow. Do you have a home? A truck could go off the road and drive right through it any time. House insurance? Almost never gets used. Savings? Why save when you could be dead tomorrow? We all live our lives by the odds, more or less. There's a high enough (to me) chance I or my wife will die before our children are self-sufficient, so we have life insurance. I have a job, a home, children, and I expect they'll all be there for the next 20 years, because the odds say they will (except the job, but there are replacements there, too). People are afraid of change, and are in love with our diet and lifestyle. Most are willing to die rather than change, or give up those things they love.
Hey, at least we would be outsourcing to qualified personnel...
By the same token, SDI was not created in a vacuum..
I thought the whole idea of SDI was for lasers to be created in a vacuum.
Yes, but SDI wasn't created, so SDI was not created in a vacuum...
There has been speculation for over a century that if adults limit their caloric intake to 60% of recommended, that your lifespan will be approximately double the average. There are currently studies being done with rats that have this effect. Already, scientific research has identified a compound nicknamed AGE that is created when sugars are combusted while having too much sugar present. It causes cell death when the quantities get too high, and leads to a reasonable explanation for the restricted-calorie idea. Hopefully, someday, we will see studies to verify this effect in humans.
On a side note, whether eating in a less-than-optimal manner reduces my lifespan, or eating in an optimal manner increases my lifespan is entirely semantics. The end result is, if I eat one way, I'll live 10 years (or whatever) less than if I eat another. And "not paying attention to it" can be sufficiently achieved by eating a typical American diet.
At least we can all agree on a standard clock!
Yep, at least until you start working on a Mars mission, at which time we agree to disagree about ALL units of measure...
Like he said, every one. I bet if he starts with the apothecary one, though, that the metric people will stop fighting and just sit there smiling...
Oh, and you forgot the troy ounce (used for measuring precious metals). But don't tell, they're keeping that one back for reserves.
Wow, you've just supplied a theory in which teaching basic QM to idiots improves the universe's (and multiverse's) average intelligence. I propose that further experimentation be done to test this theory. Where do I sign up?
Cute line, but I'm ashamed of the moderators. Batteries (and battery density) are also important to electrical systems (which is not electronics, think motors) and weapons systems :P
I give an instant 9/10 to any book that puts politician and "flickering mind" in the same sentence.
I agreed with most of what you said, but had to point out one thing I didn't agree with: whether government should have a concern with the promotion of arts and sciences. Government is very interested in those things, because of two things: economy and security. People pay to see (or own) great art, people pay for the results of science, and having superior technology to other countries benefits your security (this goes beyond the 'security' issues of the day, imagine if anyone could easily counterfeit one of the most influential currencies around?). When you think of France, what do you think of? Well, besides renaming foods in retaliation for not wanting to play in the Middle East. Yep, really old buildings, (one of the?) tallest freestanding structure in the world, the Louvre. And where are you going to eat, and sleep? All good for the economy.
So it behooves the government to be interested in this, just like they're interested in industry, because it is the lifeblood of the country. They (are supposed to) make laws to promote this, preferably not to the long-term detriment of these same things. The idea is, artists/inventors will have the capability to make a profit (and pay off the research costs) before the protection is gone and anyone can use their new idea, which will attract them to your country, and further promote your economy. This is all great in theory, and I agree with it, in theory. But when you have 25-year patents in an industry where 5 years old is obsolete, or copyrights lasting decades after the death of the artist, it seems the spirit of the constitution is being directly contradicted, and your point of view may well be better the current state of affairs.
Should private space craft become widely available, it would be theoretically possible to deliver (at the very least) a kinetic energy bomb to any point on the earth, at many times the speed of sound, using nothing more sophisticated than box cutters.
How to fix?
Easy. Outlaw all boxcutters, manufacture huge, expensive machines to detect box cutters, and take away the constitutional rights of anyone known to own or have access to box cutters. I suggest starting the investigations with school teachers. They always seem to have access to sharp pointy things, and, with the grades American students are getting, they clearly are focusing on other things than their jobs.
Or you could just wake up and realize that terrorism deaths were barely a blip in the annual death toll, barely outranking the flu for that year. Still shitty, but not worth removing the rights of some significant portion of a quarter billion people.
I'm supplied with an IBM laptop through work, previous was Win2KPro, current is WinXPPro. I didn't have (many) problems with the 2K box - about once a week, it would require a full reboot, and certain (non-standard) apps would fail in one way or another after S3 or suspend-to-disk. Overall, it was worth the more-regular-than-I-hoped-for reboots. My WinXP works fine for both S3 and suspend-to-disk, no noticeable issues requiring reboots, and same issues with the non-standard apps. I only reboot once or twice a month now, mostly to clean up the garbage from apps that don't quite behave (which probably isn't a suspend issue).
Not to say your experience is an exception. These are the first two computers where I've had it work, and only in the last 3 years. There were others where I work that didn't behave sufficiently to do S3 at all.
Did you take Literature 101? Did you not read the part where I said one of the requirements for this to occur was "cheap (read: free)" energy? And yes, since carbon is in just about everything, Pixie dust should work just fine, so long as you can find some. If not, you can use just about anything else, like you said. That said, I could have been clearer, saying instead, "After all, what is the value of something that requires only free resources (materials, energy) and no labour to produce?" But nice contextual break.
You're right, of course. Easy access to physical manufacturing on demand, coupled with cheap (read: free) energy would totally ruin our current economy. After all, what is the value of something that requires no resources (materials, energy, labour) to produce? The interesting questions are: Will the leaders of our current economy allow this to happen easily?; and, What kind of economy will replace it? I don't think the economic leaders will be able to stop this for long once the requirements are met (and that could take a VERY long time), so it's the less interesting of the two. The more interesting is the second. I think in a society like that, you will see two kinds of celebrities: those who design truly new things; and those who adapt new things in innovative ways. That will be the currency in that kind of environment. Beyond that, I think you'll see an interesting mix of new ideas and very old ideas, because, even with a revolution as big as that, humans will remain human.
Moreover, will road cones that aren't working (or on strike) be required to be constantly moving while in that state? After all, they seem to work best when they are stationary...hey, I'm qualified to be a road cone!
Damn, if I had mod points, I'd have given you +1 Funny. Now I know why Valenti said un-fucking-believable. That's what I thought when I saw it too.
Well....limits approaching zero are more cost-effective...
On the contrary, space is a perfect place for bureaucrats, so long as they have limited life support...
How can you tell this car was built by academics? They spend god knows how many hours building a car out of wood, from purposely obfuscated plans that are half a thousand years old, and have never heard of the Utah salt flats. I mean come on, they test rocket cars there! Do they really think a giant wind-up toy is going to do better than that?
Where the hell are you going to sit on this thing? I can just imagine a bunch of people in Victorian clothing pushing it backwards and getting on their skateboards while still holding on for a ride down the cobbled streets.
Of course, being a pessimist, you know nothing's gonna change. Right?
No it doesn't. Welcome home.
But at least soldiers aren't being quartered in private houses.
I'm looking into the future, and guess what Bush has planned for one of his budget cuts in 2005?
I'd far rather trust my military's fuel supply to a foreign country than engage in warmongering. Bush's actions border on that.
Yes, Venezuela is part of OPEC. OPEC also controls 75% of the known oil reserves. They also supply 40% of the world's oil needs. Think long and hard about the short- and long-term control that gives them on oil prices. Something tells me that when the production of oil is lowered in Venezuela, the price of Texas crude goes up, too. That's basic supply and demand. Again, if the U.S. can increase the supply, which direction is the price going to go?
Oh, are we back to where U.S. buys their oil from? How much of a reduction of profit is any company going to take to do the right thing? Texas oil might be cheaper than Venezuelan oil, but how much? Well, take a look at this. Or compare the values of these two links. Hmm, why is U.S. crude more expensive? Well, could be the prices don't include shipping, or it could be government pork. Why don't you determine that? So let's sing a new song: It doesn't matter which OPEC country you buy oil from, or even if you don't buy from them, all countries are going to sell at or about the going rate. And OPEC holds a lot of power over that rate.
I may not have studied the niceties of the oil market much beyond being an informed consumer, and having the previously mentioned high-school-level knowledge of economics, but it's nice to see that it all bears out. Maybe there's a difference between ignorance and an educated guess.
As for patriotism, no I don't think it's bad, so long as it isn't blind or wearing rose-colored glasses. Patriotism, like science, ought to bear up to harsh, cold scrutiny. If it doesn't, it needs to be re-evaluated. No, I don't live in the U.S., but if I did, I would like to think I would be spending time in the streets protesting a war with no forthrightness, a presidency with no regard for its constituents, and a culture with no respect for other cultures.
Oh, so how much has Halliburton made in Iraq? Here's one link. Do you really want me to believe that there aren't qualified organizations based in the Middle East for working in oil fields? How about the rest of Europe?
Also, ever hear of OPEC? You know, the guys setting oil production rates in the Middle East? Seems to me, whenever they limit production, world oil prices go up, no matter which one you buy from. Stands to reason that, if the U.S had Iraq ignore the production limits set by them, you could reduce their control on oil prices, even halfway around the world in the U.S, let alone in Saudi Arabia.
Your ignorance, as well as your patriotism, is stereotypical.